Separation of Politics from Science or Separation of Science from Morals?

President Obama purports to separate Politics from Science. Is that what the reinstatement of using embryonic stem cells does? Despite the objection of many, which objection is based on moral values rather than politics, Mr. Obama has overturned the ban of the previous administration. Others object to the ban as they believe it’s based on Roman Catholic teachings and state that Catholics want to have babies implanted but not have the leftover embryos thrown away.

Not so fast. Catholic teaching promotes abstinence outside of marriage, prohibits artificial birth control and abortion, including chemically-induced abortions stemming from the so-called “morning after” pill, and also prohibits pregnancy from artificial means. That’s right. Catholics should not be using lab-created embryos as science is involved at that point, not God. Catholics are to “be open” to pregnancy, not to achieve it at all costs.

Embryonic stem cells are from embryos. Contrary to the belief of Mr. Bill Clinton, embryos have been fertilised and are future babies. Creating embryos for scientific use, or shifting embryos created in order to have babies, to experimental use, puts us squarely in the evil territory of Dr. Mengele. Incidentally, why should the government fund this sort of research? If it was viable wouldn’t others be putting up their money?

While the current objective is perceived as benign, we don’t know to what lengths people will go to get the stem cells they need; in many cases, in order to cure an existing child, couples have conceived a second child for use of its umbilical cord. Imagine for a moment that you’re the second child. How would you feel, knowing that you weren’t conceived because your parents wanted another child, but rather that they wanted a cure for your sibling? Would you truly feel loved?

These days, clinics are advertising designer babies, where you get to choose the attributes of your future child (though thankfully stopped offering this due to outrage), which, while not using stem cells, seems a bit creepy. It leads us down the slippery slope of playing God. Some countries outlaw use of abortion for the purpose of choosing a babies gender; this is popular in India, though illegal.

These sorts of choices, lead us down the road to having a skewed population; take a look at any country that values a boy child over a girl child, to the extent that in population-controlled China, girls are regularly neglected, given up for adoption to other countries or outright killed. They lack the value of a boy. While you might not believe it could be possible in the US, even here, girls are aborted because parents prefer to have a boy.

Mr. Obama has put no constraints on the use of embryonic stem cells. That’s frightening and some states are introducing legislation to limit stem cell research because of it.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pm and is filed under Catholic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Post navigation

29 Responses to Separation of Politics from Science or Separation of Science from Morals?

Destruction of embryos for stem cells is no longer a problem:
Because of the discovery of yamanaka factors we can now take a patch of skin a millimeter thin and turn those skin cells into stem cells for that particular person

i went to a genetic update conference and above is pretty much what was said
try searching “yamanaka factors” along with stem cells and you’ll probably find a few things like articles from Nature magazine or at least some mention on wikipedia

stem cells become other types of cells when different “factors” are introduced
Shinya Yamanaka discovered 4 factors(called yamanaka factors) that reprogrammed somatic cells into an embryonic stem cell state
this was discovered around nov-dec 2008 i believe

Dylan, there’s a big difference in stem cells from a patch of skin and stem cells from an unborn human baby.

Using embryos as a crop of stem cells is wrong. Those babies might have been the one(s) who would help make the world a better place.

If you don’t think one individual matters, please watch the movie “It’s A Wonderful Life”. It illustrates very well the effect one person has on society. We each affect our little corner of the world and the effects of our actions sometimes reach farther than we know.

We should not consider the mother the doner of embrionic stem cells. The true doner is the unborn child, who has no choice in the matter. It is duplicitous of liberals to push for double murder charges when someone kills a pregnant woman while still supporting “a woman’s right to choose.”

Jews and Catholics have Always considered conception as the beginning of life and divine revelation backs us up on that. Unbelievers are wasting their breath if they think Catholics will ever change their position on this issue.

Like deVos says, embryonic stem cells are no longer an issue; scientifically, they’re almost the same as getting a donor organ as they’d have to be compatible to the recipient, so that’s why there’s no future for them. as for abortion being morally wrong, in most cases, i’d agree with you, but when i think of babies being thrown away after birth, i feel that it might be better in the long run to allow it. but in the case of india, now they’re all paying for it as the number of women is much less than men, so women have now become an asset, and many men find that women are pickier when chooseing husbands, so they’re left out.

yeah, i was pretty surprised myself… was actually looking for pictures for an essay on stem cell therapy, when i stubled across this website… this is a pretty nice figure, but not up to date… but anyway, i think its really easy for all of us to sit here and discuss the evils of embryonic stem cell research, since we’re healthy people not in dire need for cures, but who’s to say we wouldn’t feel different about it if we were suffering from some incurable lethal disease and needed a new organ…
not taking sides, just trying to be fair to all. =)

Let’s see: the Science President is for fetal/embryonic stem cell research, which doesn’t work, abortion as being healthy, though it isn’t, for manmade global warming, which is the sun acting up (even the non right-wing conservative Coast to Coast and guests seem to believe that), and for lousy healthcare he and other elites don’t have to use. On top of that, Obama cuts funding to the NASA space program, setting us back in another real science, national pride and defense.

stem cell research has allowed us to find a chemical that KILLS BREAST CANCER
abortions rarely harm the potential mother
global warming is REAL and not just because of dumb ol al gore – its because our emmissions HAVE increased CO2 levels and that HAS caused a large increase in overall global temperature
in fact, global warming isnt caused by any changes in the sun at all
give me EVIDENCE of how this “acting up” has anything to do with global warming and my liberal, elite, a** opinion may waver

You can’t have a baby for the baby’s sake. Its always for someone else’s benifit. It has to be, you cannot decide to do something for the benifit of a person who does not yet exist.

You have a second child to be your first child’s companion- no love is lost. You have a child to carry on your family business- no love is lost. Sure, if the second child was discarded purely as a vessel to provide health for the first that’s terrible and immoral.
Abortion debate aside, I would be proud if i was conceived for the purposes of saving my sibling (provided i recieved the same care and support of course).

the pill when taken correctly works 99.9% of the time (out of 1000 people 1 pregnacy may occur)
if women aren’t taking the pill consistently then it isnt the pills fault, it’s the user’s
breast cancer has a slight increase in occurrence but is less advanced if birth contol was taken
ovarian and endometrial cancer chances are REDUCED
may increase risk of cervical cancer but 99% of cases are caused by HPV (human papillomavirus) not birth control

once again your argument against condoms ist the condoms fault its people’s (who NATURALLY gain a disire for sex during puberty and onward)

Plan B is NOT an abortion
if taken up to three days after unprotected sex, the levonorgestral can prevent the sperm from fertilizing an egg (sperm live 72 hrs while ovum live 24 hrs. if plan b used before an ovum is released fertilization can be prevented)
if you consider this an abortion then male masturbation and the female period can also be considerred abortions
While plan b prevents fertilization it does not harm the zygote if it has already formed

Going on and on about religous conontations is moot. However, saying Fetal cells and embryonic stem cells are in the same category in the religious view is false. Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk states that fetal cells from miscarriages along with cells retrieved from umbilical cords or placenta, and bone marrow are all supported by the Catholic church.
Embryonic Stem Cells are retrieved from 4-5 day old cast away embryos that the cells inside have no identifying factors whatsoever out of Fertilization facilities. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

the only thing i said (if you are accusing me) concerning religious views is that the religious rite is against contraceptives and abortions.
im not sure where this “going on and on” bit is coming from. i thought it was a single sentence

my main problem with the way religion uses the scientific method concerns creationism and their general nonacceptance of physics discoveries thoughout history

using creationism as an example
hypothesis: god created all creatures
research: fossils and bones of past creatures that bare then carbon dated to show a timeline of change
conclusion: creatures were originally similar but differentiated depending on setting

many religions dismiss this HUGE amount of evidence contrary to their hypothesis and are unwilling to change it

I agree no evidence has been shown to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of any god or gods but the IDEAS of theism and a gods involvement in the universe have continually been shot down and disproven via the scientific method
many theists like fundementalist christians revoke evidence contrary to their beliefs

my philosophy is that something does not exist or is not true unless there is evidence to support its existence or factuality

This comment is directed to the person who called them self ‘My self’. Who ever you are next time you post a comment like that remember to say your name. If you feel your comment is so ‘strong’ try saying who you are no one is afraid of you! Stop hiding your identity.